Subject: [Sip] RFC 3261 supported header in 1xx responses

From: "Brett Tate" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:37:59 -0500

Within early versions of draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis, the Supported header
could be expected within 1xx responses.  However within
draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-06 it was removed and remains so within RFC 3261.
Is there a reason why it is undesirable to indicate supported extensions
within a 1xx?  Or was it just an oversight when changing the "Summary of
header fields" table to indicate 2xx instead of all responses?

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:39:10 -0500

It makes sense to include them in a dialog forming response. A normal 
1xx is not dialog forming. My suspicion (though I didn't check if this 
was true) is that it went away when 100rel moved out of 3261. It can't 
hurt to send them, of course, but it would be ignored unless its reliable.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com